Graham Allen: What measure his Department is taking to ensure that the UK meets its target of 10 per cent. of energy being generated from renewable sources by 2010; and if he will make a statement.

Alan Johnson: In 2003, the Government established the renewals obligation to support renewable generating capacity to help us to meet a target of 10 per cent. of electricity generated from renewables by 2010. In addition, we have invested £500 million in capital grants between 2002–08 to encourage research and development and installation of renewables and low-carbon technologies. We are making good progress with more renewable generation in the UK than ever before, but in order for us to go even further the energy review will look at the potential role of a variety of low-carbon technologies, including renewables, in helping the UK meet its medium and long-term energy policy goals.

Alun Michael: As my hon. Friend knows, I have been in contact with the company and have met Mr. Folz, who heads it. We maintain regular contact and hope very much indeed that its engagement and production will continue in this country. Indeed, at the meeting that I had with Mr. Folz, he went out of his way to reassure us. Clearly, we are aware of the rumours and the concerns in my hon. Friend's constituency and in the wider region. That is why we maintain close contract with the company and will continue to share and communicate with Mr. Folz and his colleagues on these issues.

Alan Duncan: The climate change levy was supposed to be revenue neutral on the grounds that it also reduced employers' national insurance contributions. Since its introduction, both NICs and the levy have gone up. If the levy is genuinely to be a tax on climate change, not just a tax on energy use, surely all logic should compel the Government to design a system that constrains emissions, rather than just clobbers manufacturing. In what possible sense does the climate change levy distinguish between those who use energy that does produce emissions and those who use energy that does not?

Jo Swinson: I am sure the Minister will join me in congratulating the positive women role models in sport, such as Olympic medallist Shelley Rudman, our 56 women Commonwealth medallists from the home nations so far, and the five courageous competitors in "The Games" who are women, including my hon. Friend the Member for Falmouth and Camborne (Julia Goldsworthy). Is the Minister not concerned that awards worth £3.8 million are made to elite male athletes—over 50 per cent. more than the £2.3 million in awards to women athletes? That entrenches the existing male bias in sporting role models.

Business of the House

Theresa May: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for giving us the business for the coming weeks, which, as he announced, includes debates on the Budget. I understand that nothing will be said about the health service during those debates because there will be no speech from the Health Secretary. Last week alone, 2,000 NHS jobs were cut, including doctors and nurses, but the Chancellor had nothing to say about the health service. When I have raised these NHS cuts in the past, the right hon. Gentleman's response has been, "Don't you think financial management is important?" Of course it is, but we need a debate on what has caused the cuts.
	Yesterday, the Royal Free hospital in Hampstead announced 480 job cuts and Geoff Martin, head of campaigns at London Health Emergency, said that that explained why the Chancellor had
	"body-swerved the NHS question . . . Sacking nurses never looks good for the Government."
	I am interested in his comments, because I remember him when he was a Labour councillor in the London borough of Merton. Government targets and bureaucracy lie behind those cuts. That is why they are genuinely Brown's NHS cuts. Let us fill in the gap that the Chancellor left in the Budget and have a debate on the NHS.
	Some cuts are also being made in mental health services. In the Adjournment debate on Monday, the Minister of State, Department of Health, the hon. Member for Doncaster, Central (Ms Winterton) stated:
	"Surveys show that only 11 of a total of 84 trusts have considered making small cuts in mental health services."—[Official Report, 20 March 2006; Vol. 444, c. 132.]
	Today there is a written ministerial statement on mental health legislation, but according to the radio this morning, the Government will scrap the Mental Health Bill, little more than a month after our debate on mental health, when no mention was made of scrapping the Bill. Again, we learn more about the Government's actions from the media than on the Floor of the House. The Secretary of State for Health should make an oral statement on mental health services next week, so that she can be questioned by hon. Members and held to account for her actions.
	Today, the Prime Minister is making a written statement on an independent adviser on Ministers' interests. I welcome what appears to be his change of heart. However, we have called for an independent review of the ministerial code for four years. Indeed, I repeated that call yesterday in Westminster Hall. Will the Prime Minister make an oral statement on that and confirm that the Chancellor played an active part in Cabinet debates on the matter? It is another subject on which the Chancellor has been strangely silent.
	Today the chairman of Capita, Rod Aldridge, who lent money to the Labour party, resigned. Last year the Chancellor appointed him to chair his commission on youth volunteering. Will the Chancellor make a statement on Capita's links with the Government?
	The Chancellor mentioned equal pay yesterday. He said:
	"I can today announce new help for working women who want a wider range of career choices offering higher earnings and to close the pay gap with men."—[Official Report, 22 March 2006; Vol. 444, c. 293.]
	To follow up the questions that have just been asked to the Minister for Women and Equality, does that mean that the Chancellor will close the 49 per cent. pay gap that exists for that Minister? After all, there is still no Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, and the Department for Transport is one Minister down, so the money is available. May we have a debate on levels of pay? During it, we could perhaps discuss the pay offer in a Labour party advert last week, offering £28,000 to £32,000 for
	"an experienced, successful, highly motivated and dynamic fundraiser to secure significant funds for the Labour Party."
	That individual will be
	"involved in all aspects of our key donor fundraising work where you will be expected both to initiate ideas and fulfil expectations."
	We all know what those are. It is time that that the Prime Minister came to the House and explained himself.

Geoff Hoon: First, the right hon. Lady referred to the Budget debate. There will be a debate today, which will continue on Monday and Tuesday. There will therefore be every opportunity for hon. Members to raise any issue that they wish, not least the excellent funding that the NHS receives. As my right hon. Friend the Chancellor made clear, an extra £6 billion will be put into the NHS next year and a further £6 billion the year after.
	If Conservative Members genuinely believe that that extra money should not be spent on the health service, they need to make it clear—rather clearer than the shadow Chief Secretary, the hon. Member for Chipping Barnet (Mrs. Villiers), speaking on Sky News yesterday. When she was asked:
	"So therefore compared to what he"—
	the Chancellor—
	"is planning on spending you would be spending less?"
	the hon. Lady replied:
	"Um . . . It's . . . It would certainly . . . Yeah, yeah, undoubtedly that could be a possibility".
	What a lamentable performance from someone who apparently aspires to run the British economy. Perhaps that explains why she has been pulled from the Budget debate and is not replying to it, as traditionally happens.
	Indeed, the shadow Chancellor, the hon. Member for Tatton (Mr. Osborne), is not opening the debate either, as would normally be the case. Instead, we have the right hon. Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin)—I am delighted to see him on the Front Bench—who will no doubt be declaring his considerable interests when he gets up to open the debate, having refused to abandon his connection with the City when he moved jobs. It would seem that he is now back in the same job, without having given up his interests in the City, so we are not going to take any lectures from the right hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May) about interests. She referred to the chairman of Capita, and we know that he made a loan to the Labour party—because the Labour party published that information. If the Conservatives are so keen on transparency, perhaps they should publish their list of donors. So far, however, we have not heard from them.
	The right hon. Lady asked for a debate on mental health. The Minister of State, Department of Health, my hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster, Central (Ms Winterton) has issued a written ministerial statement on that subject, as has my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister on the subject of independent advisers. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer made clear yesterday the Government's commitment to reducing the gap in women's pay, which we have consistently been committed to doing.

Vera Baird: I was very sorry that the shadow Leader of the House could not bring herself to give a sincere welcome to the initiatives that the Chancellor took yesterday to provide better training in skills for women. They have been welcomed universally by all except Opposition Members. The situation contrasts very favourably with the total lack of initiatives for women and work when the Conservatives were in government, while from time to time the pay gap worsened. None the less, acknowledging that there is a pay gap, and acknowledging that the report from the Women and Work commission contains some very good recommendations, may we have a full debate on those recommendations to establish whether we can make progress, and possibly even galvanise Opposition Members into taking a bit of interest in the issue?

Tim Loughton: Last night, I was rung by a journalist who told me that the mental health Bill will be dropped. We heard details about that this morning on the radio, and at 10.15 the press were summoned to the Department of Health to be formally informed. Sometime afterwards, a statement appeared in the Library. The Secretary of State for Health really must make a statement to the House explaining where this legislation now stands. We have had a Green Paper, a White Paper, two draft mental health Bills and a pre-legislative Scrutiny Committee. How much money has been spent on this entire exercise, which has now come to nothing? What will the timetable now be for amending the Mental Health Act 1983, and how does the Secretary of State for Health propose urgently to deal with such legislation's conflict with the European convention on human rights? Simply issuing a statement and talking to the press really will not do. The Department must be accountable to the House for this very important legislation, for which we have been waiting for seven years.

Oliver Letwin: I do not expect that the hon. Gentleman would pay much attention to the facts of an election campaign, as opposed to the rhetoric of his own party. I understand that that is often difficult for people to do. Had he read the plans that we put forward before the last election, he would have discovered that our plans exactly matched those of the Chancellor for the national health service. There was not a jot of difference. There were the same numbers in the same years. The hon. Gentleman's proposition, therefore, is entirely false.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Oliver Letwin: Nothing that I have said relates in the remotest degree to Rothschild's, and this brief and pleasant foray into the questions of this nation's finances is perfectly compatible with my declaration in the register.
	We have come to an interesting question, which I imagine that Ministers must puzzle over in their quieter moments—even given their busy ministerial schedules, they must have quieter moments. They must ask themselves, "What is going on? What is getting in the way?" There is a vast wall of money and the cheques are being signed, but why is it not having the anticipated and genuinely desired effects? The nation and the House have not yet considered that question sufficiently. That process is beginning today, and I hope that we will have ample time over the next three or four years to examine that question in detail.
	Let me advance a proposition to explain that bizarre phenomenon. This Government genuinely desire good results, and they want them quickly, which is why they are inclined to do something to achieve them quickly. However, they do not have any deep understanding of the reaction that is likely to set in on the part of society from the action of government. Action meets reaction, and reaction causes the action to be invalid and useless. It is above all the Chancellor who is the architect of that view of life, and he has a basically static view of society. He desires a good result and thinks that society will more or less stay in the same position, except that anything that he does will bring about a determinate effect. Unfortunately, society does not work like that, and I shall give some examples.
	I have already referred to means-testing, and the fact is that the Chancellor is the architect of the vast increase in means-testing. He has increased means-testing because he genuinely wants to reduce poverty—he has a moral passion in that respect, and I pay tribute to it. On both sides of the House, there is a shared desire to see poverty reduced in this country, but the problem is that there has been a reaction. The extension of means-testing has resulted in a disincentive to save, which has been a principal cause, along with the Chancellor's raid on pension funds and many other things, of the destruction of savings in this country. The result of the lack of saving has, alas, been poverty beckoning for many people who should have been rescued from it.
	If that were one isolated example, it would be important and interesting, but it would not be a pattern, but it is not one example, and it is part of a pattern. Let us consider the Secretary of State who rejoices in the title, Deputy Prime Minister. He, too, has an admirable ambition, which is again due to the Chancellor and which is again right, that there should be more homes in this country. We all share the view that we should have more homes in this country, because we need more homes in this country—many of my constituents cannot afford to buy a home. Unfortunately, however, because the desired result had to be achieved immediately without careful thought about reactions, the contractors who built those houses did not use low-carbon building techniques, because there was no incentive to do so. The result is rising carbon emissions, which directly contradicts the efforts that the Chancellor mentioned in his Budget and that the Government say that they are making to reduce carbon emissions.

Tobias Ellwood: Dorset PCTs are being made to hand back £11.5 million to the central pot in the Department of Health. That is having an adverse effect on PCTs in Bournemouth and Dorset, which are some of the best run and some of the worst funded in the country, and it is simply because this Government want to address the bigger problem of the national deficit in the NHS.

Oliver Letwin: No. I said that hon. Members would welcome the fact that I was about to sum up, and so I shall do so.
	There is only one way out of this conundrum, and that is to have a Government who understand that one has to trust people more and share responsibility with them. We must have a Government who recognise that the people who are working their socks off in our health service, our schools and our police services will not be able to do their job properly if they are constantly controlled by an overwhelming state with its targets, agencies and bureaucracy. The Chancellor can throw money at them left right and centre, over and again, in Budgets where he does mention the NHS and Budgets where he does not. He can go on trying to pretend that he is going to solve the pensions crisis in Budgets where he mentions Lord Turner and Budgets where he avoids mentioning him—this Budget was one of those—but he will never succeed in achieving the admirable goals that we share across this House if he continues to try to run the country from a desk in Whitehall. It cannot be done and it will not be done. It will produce adverse reactions, as it is today, and the money will be wasted.

Graham Stuart: The right hon. Gentleman's description of Conservative party policy is a total travesty. What we heard in the excellent exposition by my right hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset is that the Conservative party is now the party of our national health service. [Laughter.] Labour Members may laugh, but during the 1990s, under the Conservatives, productivity in the health service increased year after year. Since Labour came to power, where has the money gone? Where has it been wasted by this Chancellor? It has gone in falling productivity, as shown on page 22 of the booklet "Productivity in the UK 6", which was produced yesterday.

Alistair Carmichael: That is an interesting idea, and surely not beyond the wit of man. A pensioner is a pensioner, whether he is in Scotland, England, Wales or Northern Ireland. I hope that some of the disputes about crossing boundaries, which we have seen between different local authorities with the concessionary scheme being rolled out in England, will not appear at a macro-level. That would be a missed opportunity.
	While we will consider carefully the funding of the scheme to be rolled out by 2008, we must have more immediate regard to the situation facing local authorities that are trying to implement the scheme announced last year. That is forcing many local authorities into crisis as the 31 March deadline approaches. In Watford, for example, the Government provided funding of £300,000, but the eventual cost was no less than £830,000. In Bath and north-east Somerset, the shortfall is in the region of £200,000. Community transport schemes are suffering. Again, many people in remote and rural areas, where there is not an "ordinary" bus service, depend on such crucial schemes. They are not getting that sort of provision as part of the scheme, and I have heard of places where those schemes are being cut to allow councils to meet their commitments to the concessionary scheme.
	York has struggled because it received some £855,000 from the Government rather than the £1,086,000 that the implementation of the scheme will cost. That pattern seems to be repeated throughout the country. In many local authority areas, councillors have taken the initiative and have been able to make significant progress in providing good, often multi-modal, schemes, which are popular and workable on a local basis. Surely it is not right that those schemes should be sacrificed on the altar of the one that they are being forced to introduce.
	An awful lot of opportunities have been missed. The Budget could have delivered a great deal more for transport. The bottom line is that as an instrument of economic generation, environmental change and social inclusion, transport could deliver an awful lot more for the Government, if only they would take it seriously.

Keith Vaz: Merely saying persistently that the economy was inherited does not justify the hon. Gentleman's proposition. I know that I will be 50 this year, but my memory is not failing me. I know what a crisis is, and that is what we had. I also know what stability is: the lowest level of inflation, the lowest interest rates, the lowest unemployment and the longest sustained period of growth in our country. I think that that is a huge credit to the Chancellor.
	Of course, Oppositions have a duty to oppose what Governments do; that is the nature of opposition. I was an Opposition Member, along with my right hon. Friends the Secretary of State for Transport and the Paymaster General, for 10 years before our party became the Government, and of course one of our duties was to scrutinise. However, when the economy is going well and sustaining and benefiting our constituents, political parties have a duty to say so and to congratulate those who have made it a success. Indeed, the hon. Member for Beverley and Holderness (Mr. Stuart), who intervened just a moment ago, has benefited from the economy's strength. I am certain that if the economy were not a success, the Opposition would have offered today a much more severe critique of this Government's efforts, instead of the platitudes and nonsense that we heard from the right hon. Member for West Dorset. Therefore, I welcome this Budget and the success that we have enjoyed in the past 10 years.
	I come now to three developments that we heard about for the first time yesterday, the first of which is the additional resources that will be given to education. The overall education budget has increased in the past 10 years, which is only right. It is important that we have given so much money to education and that the economy is strong, so that we can generate the resources to enable our schools to provide our children with the best education that they have ever had. Of particular importance was the decision to give the extra £440 million directly to head teachers. Members can doubtless cite past examples of secondary and primary heads raising with them their concerns about a particular expenditure item, or a staff issue that needed to be resolved. Under this Chancellor, instead of having to ask the local authority for money, heads have been able to use the special budget given to them to deal with urgent and emergency issues. The direct payment to secondary and primary heads gives them their own budget to spend on such matters, which is most welcome.
	Like other Members, I write constantly to local education authorities asking for support for our schools. In the city of Leicester, we have a Liberal Democrat-Conservative coalition and, strangely, although they are unable to get along in Westminster, they get along extremely well in Leicester. Whenever I wanted to deal with a particular issue raised by a school in my constituency, I used to have to write directly to that coalition, and thus the paper chase began. Now, there is a budget that allows head teachers to interface directly with their stakeholders and to spend money on their schools. That is of enormous benefit to schools, head teachers and children.

Keith Vaz: The hon. Gentleman tempts me to discuss a Bill that is not the subject of this debate—and I know, Madam Deputy Speaker, that you would admonish me if I went down that path. I voted for that Bill because it is in the best interests of our pupils and of education, but passing legislation is not enough; we must also give schools the money to implement these policies, which is exactly what the Chancellor has done.
	The second specific expenditure item in the Budget—which I fully support—on which I want to touch is the money being given to prepare our children and young people for the 2012 Olympics. If we are to host the Olympics, it is absolutely vital that we have world-class athletes and that our young people are able to win medals. We cannot start indulging in these activities one or two years before the event. I know that we had a Labour Government for only three years before the millennium; nevertheless, we started our preparations for it far too late. We have six years in which to prepare our young people for the Olympic games, and we should all welcome the £600 million that has been allocated to allow us to train world-class athletes. There is a feeling in the east midlands, and Leicester in particular, that it is very much a London affair. By having the mini Olympics all over the country—we certainly wish to ensure that we have them in Leicester—we will be able to train our young people early to compete with the best in the world. Starting six years ahead of time is right, so I welcome what the Government propose for the Olympics.
	I also welcome the small but significant amount of money that will be provided to enable a memorial to be set up to those who died in the London bombings on 7 July last year. It is easy to forget and move on, but it is important that we understand the kind of society and country in which we live. Allocating funds for a memorial is not a mainstream issue for the Treasury—although of course money is—but it sends a powerful message that we stand united in the face of terrorism and that we will remember the innocent people who died, of all faiths and no faith, on that day. It is essential that we as a country recognise that and I hope that the money will be well spent. I hope that we will make a better job of it than we did the Diana memorial, which keeps flooding and which nobody can visit because people keep falling over. What a terrible memorial to a great public figure. I hope that the new memorial will be properly designed and executed so that we can remember those people properly.

Keith Vaz: No, because my right hon. Friend has done a huge amount for our health service, which we welcome, so the issue that the hon. Gentleman raises is not for my right hon. Friend. The money has been allocated and it now has to be spent. I am happy about the amount we received in Leicester, but I want the three hospitals to be modernised. That is the promise that was made and we shall hold everyone to it.
	In his intervention from the Back Benches, the hon. Member for West Chelmsford (Mr. Burns), who has now resumed his Front-Bench duties, said that I supported everything in the Budget. I do, but two important elements were missing and I hope that my right hon. Friend the Paymaster General will deal with them in her response.
	The first missing element was specific support for the textile industry. Thirty years ago, 140,000 people worked in the textile industry in Leicester; today, the number is 28,000. The hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Bone), whose constituency is in the Northampton area, knows that textiles also affect his constituency. I am worried about the industry—about the high level of imports to the European Union and the EU's failure to act properly to stop the dumping of goods. I want specific measures and help for the textile and footwear industries in Leicester, which are important not just for Leicester but for the whole country. If we invest in them, it benefits our whole economy. Before the war, one in every five white shirts in Europe was manufactured in Leicester. We had a huge textile and footwear industry, but it is disappearing. I ask the Treasury to look at that industry before the next Budget, to make sure that specific help can be given.
	The second omission from the Budget speech would have taken up only an extra minute—unlike the health service. It is the Treasury's current assessment of our readiness to join the euro. In his Budget last year, the Chancellor said that he was not authorising a new assessment, but it is important that the Treasury keeps the five economic tests under review. I am fully signed up to the need for us to pass specific tests to join the euro. I understand why the Chancellor has said that it must be done, but I am concerned that we are not keeping the tests under review. In previous Budgets, my right hon. Friend has talked about the need for an assessment, so I hope that in the winding-up speech we will find out what has happened to the current assessment. We may not have met the five economic tests, but we need to be kept informed.
	My final point is about the Lisbon agenda, whose sixth anniversary we celebrate this year, and our role as a competitive economy in ensuring that the rest of Europe reacts to the Kok report, commissioned by the European Commission last year, and to the decisions being made this very day in the spring European Council. My right hon. Friend the Paymaster General is a frequent visitor to ECOFIN, so she knows what it is like to deal with our European colleagues and how difficult it is to move countries along. The Lisbon score card is extremely important, because Lisbon was the first European summit to benchmark European economic success. We asked why, over the past decade, America was able to create 10 million jobs, while in Europe we could create only 1 million. It was due to the nature of our economies.
	As my right hon. Friend knows, two reports have been issued this week. One was from the BRUEGEL group—the Brussels European and Global Economic Laboratory—and said that we were doing extremely badly and were way down the list in respect of the Lisbon score card. The second assessment, by the Centre for European Reform, was that we were at the top of the Lisbon score card, one of only three European Union countries to have met all three of Lisbon's employment targets.
	It is all very well having the best economy in Europe, but we also need—I say this in all friendliness to my right hon. Friends—to ensure that we export some of that economic success to the rest of the European Union. That needs leadership from the United Kingdom on such issues and an acceptance that we must strive to achieve the benchmarks. We are leaders in Europe in economic reform and in the competitiveness of our economy. All that I ask is that we give emphasis and focus to those successes in the year that comes.
	I have only praise for the Budget. I send a big "thank you" from my constituents to the Chancellor and his Treasury team for giving us the cultural stability that has been lacking in Britain for so many years.

Mark Lazarowicz: Tackling climate change and protecting the environment was one of the central themes of yesterday's Budget. When I saw that the Conservatives had put up the right hon. Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin) to open the debate, I thought that that would be a major theme of the Conservative contribution today. The right hon. Gentleman was evidently allocated to perform another role in the debate, but at least he did not perform it in the same foaming-at-the-mouth, carpet-chewing style of his leader yesterday, for which we must be grateful.
	Although the right hon. Member for West Dorset did not take up the issue of climate change and the environment, I should like to record my welcome for the fact that the Chancellor chose to put it at the heart of the Budget, thereby reflecting the increasing concerns of our constituents. Some environmental organisation have, naturally, criticised the Budget for not delivering all that they would want, but that is in the nature of campaigning organisations. That said, some elements of the Budget have received a positive response from those organisations.

Mark Lazarowicz: The two elements go together. On their present trends, the climate change levy and the climate change agreements will have a roughly similar effect in terms of a reduction of carbon emissions. They both have their role to play. Clearly, any tax can be refined and improved, but the key point is that the levy has had a significant impact on reducing emissions in the UK. Independent—not Government—research has shown that it has had a significant impact on the behaviour of businesses. Adding that fairly small, but visible, element to their costs encourages them not only to reduce their energy costs but to look at other ways of operating and improving energy overall, which has a positive effect on our carbon emission reduction targets. We must also bear in mind that taken together, the overall effect of the reductions in energy demand and in national insurance contributions has been a reduction in costs for business as a whole. That has to be seen in the round. Elements can always be adjusted and improved, but the general direction is one that we should support.
	I am genuinely puzzled by the Conservatives' refusal at least to give some qualified backing to the climate change levy. They are entitled to say that they want to see change but this is not the right one and they would do something else in future. We get one or two hints of what that might be from vague references to a carbon tax, but merely saying that that might be the answer does not take us much further, because it could be applied in many ways. We have not seen anything representing a worked-out proposal from the Conservatives—perhaps we will hear about it later in the debate—so we have no idea of what alternative they would put in place.
	No doubt their conversion to the green agenda is genuine, although there may be some exceptions. However, they cannot tell us time and again that we will have to wait until the machinery—no doubt wind-powered—of Conservative think-tanks grinds out some kind of policy recommendation before they come off the fence on the climate change levy. Surely the right position, if they were really concerned about the issue, would be for them to say, "We don't think it's the best policy and it's not our preferred policy, but it's making a difference and having an impact. We will support it now and in the Lobby at the end of these debates on Tuesday, and in due course we will come forward with an alternative." Surely the Conservative party should not undermine a policy that has had a significant effect on reducing carbon emissions. Everyone who has an interest in the subject and knows about it realises that.

Graham Stuart: I believe that the hon. Gentleman is genuinely committed. Unlike with so many Labour Members, I do not find it necessary to denigrate the motives of my political opponent. However, he has not mentioned that, under the Government, CO 2 emissions have increased and are continuing to rise. That is a failure of Government policy. Emissions fell under the Conservatives and are increasing under Labour. This dirty Chancellor is letting down the environment.

Mark Lazarowicz: We accept that we need to do more to reach our targets. However, without the climate change levy, carbon emissions would be even higher. That stands to reason. The hon. Gentleman should accept that, if we are to hit our targets—we have all said that we will do that—the climate change levy has an important role to play. I am therefore disappointed and genuinely puzzled by the way in which the Conservative party will not move on the issue.
	The Opposition's approach is unfortunate if we are trying to hold a serious debate on how to make progress on policy. I do not want to spend all my time on the climate change levy, but its beneficial impact on carbon emissions is acknowledged. If we cannot get even qualified Conservative support for it, we encourage disillusionment and cynicism outside the House, and the idea that all we do in here is talk about tackling climate change without effecting specific policies. I therefore hope that the Conservative party may yet reconsider its position.

Mark Lazarowicz: The hon. Gentleman makes a reasonable point.
	We will have to revisit the level of tax on fuel for motor vehicles. However, the Chancellor said yesterday that he would delay the decision on an increase in fuel duty until later this year, by continuing the freeze until 1 September, and there are good reasons for doing so. The present high level of world oil prices will clearly have had a bearing on that decision, which is understandable. However, I would not be surprised if there was a concern somewhere in the Chancellor's mind about the possible political consequences were we to return to a regular uprating of vehicle fuel duty.
	If we seriously look at the issue, we will all know that, in spite of recent increases, the cost of motoring in real terms has gone down over the longer term and that the increase in greenhouse gas emissions as a result of increases in road traffic has been an important contributor to the UK's overall greenhouse gas position. One of the most powerful factors influencing the extent of use of motor vehicles is the cost of motoring. We cannot get away from that. We all know that it is true.
	If we are really serious, we have to do something about the problem. Yet again, we have not heard any serious suggestions from those on the Opposition Front Benches about what we might do to recognise that reality. We certainly did not get them from those on the Conservative Front Bench. When the hon. Member for Rochdale (Paul Rowen) was not in the Chamber, I quoted from the comments made by the Liberal Democrat leader in the Budget debate yesterday. He criticised the new vehicle excise duty on 4x4s as being a very limited measure. I made the point that the impression that we gained from the comment made by the leader of the Liberal Democrats and repeated elsewhere during the day was that he was against the measure because it did not go far enough. He was in favour—so it would appear—of a higher increase in vehicle excise duty. That is certainly in line with what the hon. Member for Rochdale has just said. He nods so he seems to agree that he would like to see higher vehicle excise duty on the top-range vehicles.
	When I pressed this point with the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland earlier in the debate, he seemed to say that he was not in favour of an increase in tax on the high fuel-consuming vehicles in certain circumstances. He seemed to say that he would be against such a measure in remote and rural areas. One suspects that there is a close correlation between remote and rural areas and Liberal Democrat constituencies. Once again, we see the Liberal Democrat tendency to talk green at one level, but to explain to their constituents that it will not really affect them. Someone else will be green, but not them.

Graham Stuart: I entirely and happily agree that the independence of the Bank of England was a good thing. However, the hon. Gentleman has failed to recognise the transformation that I have described. He is more knowledgeable on matters economic than most of us, but he is still too grudging to acknowledge that. I have noticed that almost every one of his contributions in the House seems to be a partisan attack on an Opposition party.
	The House would benefit from the hon. Gentleman's intellect and—as I know privately—charm, if he used them constructively to deal with the world as it is and not as a partisan punch ball. Any fair-minded or neutral person would recognise my description of the background when the Government came to power.
	In my constituency, the number of people employed in manufacturing in the last three years of the last Conservative Government increased by 3,000; since the Labour Government came to power, those jobs have reduced by 1,600. That is a lot of families whose jobs have been destroyed. By undermining manufacturing, the Government have helped to undermine the future prosperity of the country.
	Earlier I mentioned some figures that showed the contrast between 1997 and the present, but they are worth repeating. In 1997, when the Chancellor came to power, inflation was lower than it is at present—contrary to the impression one might receive when listening to Labour Members. The rate of inflation in 1997 was 1.8 per cent., compared to 2.1 per cent. in 2005. Real GDP growth in 1997 was 3.2 per cent., compared to 1.8 per cent. at present.

Stephen Hesford: When the Liberal Democrats come to wind up, I would certainly welcome an assurance that they would not abolish the child trust fund, although I suspect that I would be disappointed in that hope.
	I have already mentioned the sporting successes in my constituency, in regard to the open golf championship. I have looked fondly at our success at the winter Olympic games and, in particular, at the Commonwealth games, on the back of the investment from UK Sport and the Government. I therefore welcome the £600 million for world-class British athletes that, I hope, will build on that success in the years to come.
	I wait with interest to see whether the decision to increase investment in education that my right hon. Friend announced yesterday will be supported by the Opposition. That was a key political statement. Such decisions are not taken easily, but they are taken for the principled reason that we should invest in the future of ordinary, hard-working families and their children so that they can make the best of their natural abilities and compete on a level playing field in the best possible circumstances with the 6 to 7 per cent. who benefit from private education. Although I do not begrudge people their private education, I want the vast majority of children to have access to the best. My right hon. Friend was brave and correct to come to such a decision and that will not be lost on the mums, dads and grandparents in my constituency.
	One might say that making such decisions is what a Labour Government should be doing, and it the sort of the thing that this Government are doing. I ask all parties in the House to support this decision and to do so not just in principle by saying that they think it is a nice idea, but to do so by agreeing to guarantee the money not just for one year but for each and every year until 2011 when the rise in spending will take effect. I also welcome the additional £585 million that will be distributed directly to schools throughout the financial year 2006–07.
	Community support officers are making such a difference in my constituency. Their introduction was opposed by Conservative Members even though I believe that Members on both sides now support the work that those officers do. I am therefore delighted that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor is building on their success by doubling their number to 16,000 at a cost of another £100 million.
	I am also delighted that my right hon. Friend has seen fit to copy the very good free transport system that we have had for a long time in Merseyside and extend free pensioner travel across the country. That will be very much welcomed on both sides of the House. It will certainly be welcomed by pensioners in my constituency who were able to travel throughout Merseyside for free, but became frustrated when they reached the border and had to start to pay for their travel.
	It has been argued that the NHS was not mentioned in the Budget speech. Since I first spoke in the House in 1997, I have watched the economy and my local health service. I have regularly visited my local NHS trust and all the other health services in my area in my nearly nine years in Parliament. I do not deny that there are difficulties in certain trusts—others can address that issue—but the NHS in my area certainly speaks for itself. I am very pleased that it does.
	I welcome the Budget and I am delighted to have been able to take part in the debate. Perhaps I should have started with this, but I apologise to the House for not being present for the beginning of the debate. However, I am grateful to have had the chance to speak.

David Gauke: Yes, there is a "but". When labour is hoarded—if that is the correct phrase—and growth does not follow, there is more vulnerability to an increase in unemployment. If the downturn lasts longer than expected, there will be higher unemployment. That is a potential difficulty. In 2006 we are witnessing some increase in unemployment, perhaps suggesting that the labour-hoarding is unwinding to some extent. We shall see.
	There are, however, more substantial reasons why productivity has been so poor. One is the increase in regulation. According to the "Burdens Barometer" published by the British Chambers of Commerce, the cost of regulation has risen by £14 billion since 1998. The World Economic Forum says that since 1997 the United Kingdom has fallen from 13th in its league table to 30th in terms of Government regulation.
	The Chancellor focused a great deal on the City of London in his Budget and the papers that have been produced. The City faces great challenges and regulation, which in general are not domestically driven. They come not from the United Kingdom but from the European Union: the Markets in Financial Instruments directive, for instance, is causing concern.
	Taxation is another problem. Business taxes have risen substantially. The Ernst and Young analysis shows that if North sea oil revenue is excluded, taxes are the highest that they have ever been. The level of taxation is not the only difficulty, however. We should observe what is being done by our competitors. We are to be taxed more heavily than Germany, and it is no surprise that Germany's growth is likely to exceed ours in the years ahead.
	We should consider not just our own taxation level, in absolute terms and relative to those of our competitors, but the complexity of taxation. Let me give an example. I know that vehicle excise duty is not a business tax, and I am not particularly critical of the policy per se, but it is rather characteristic of this Chancellor that we are to have seven different rates whereas once we had only one. That illustrates this Government's tendency to complicate matters. According to a World Economic Forum assessment, in terms of tax simplicity the UK is ranked 67th in the world, tied with Benin.
	A further element threatening productivity is the decline in business investment. The Chancellor said in his 2001 Budget that
	"To achieve our first ambition—to secure the fastest productivity growth of our competitors over the next decade—business investment must rise".—[Official Report, 7 March 2001; Vol. 364, c. 298.]
	That is not happening. Business investment is falling, in part because of the taxation and regulation that I mentioned earlier. It is now at a record low: about 9 per cent. of gross domestic product, which is the lowest level since records began in 1965.
	The British Chambers of Commerce and the CBI have offered substantial criticism of our skills levels. I know that more is being spent on education and I am not critical of that, but we must get the value for money that the Government have not achieved in the past. Until we get the full reforms that we need, I will not be all that optimistic. To be fair, the Government are moving in the right direction through their Education and Inspections Bill, but there is still a long way to go.
	This country has enormous advantages, such as the English language and strong cultural links with many other parts of the world. In an increasingly globalised world, we should be able to succeed, grow and prosper. There is cross-party consensus on the need to embrace globalisation, and we at least all talk about a belief in and desire for free trade, even if we do not always implement it. But our economy is becoming increasingly clogged up and it is less competitive and productive than it was. There are some fundamental economic issues that we need to face, and I fear that this Budget has completely failed to do so.

Peter Bone: Perhaps I should move away from education, Mr. Deputy Speaker, as it was causing a bit of concern, but I shall finish the point I was making, as the hon. Member for Normanton (Ed Balls) wanted a reply.
	I do not believe a word that the Government say about education. I do not believe that any extra money will go into education in Wellingborough. The Government's history over the past nine years is that in Wellingborough educational provision has gone down. It may be great in the hon. Gentleman's constituency but it is not in mine, and the Government should take that into account. Wellingborough should receive its fair share of education spending.
	The most important issue in Wellingborough is the health service. As many Members have said, the Chancellor did not mention the health service at all. I am not really surprised. Dentistry in Wellingborough has been privatised, and I saw no commitment in the Labour party manifesto to do that. There were far more NHS dentists in Wellingborough in 1997 than there are today. If people can find an NHS dentist who will take them on, it is almost a miracle. On GP appointments, we have one of the lowest ratios of doctors to patients in the United Kingdom, and it was much better in 1997.
	The most important problem in the area relates to Kettering general hospital. There is no hospital in Wellingborough, and we should have a community hospital there. We hear that the Government are in favour of community hospitals, but there is no money for one in Wellingborough. However, the Government have a very useful formula for funding the NHS to make it fair across the country. That is a very good idea. The only problem is that when they announced that funding, they provided my area with only 85 per cent. of what the funding formula says the sum should be. [Interruption.] Labour Members may argue about that, but I am told that the reason why that happens is that other areas get more money.
	I am pleased that other areas get more than their formula share, but that is not good enough for the people of Wellingborough. All the talk of the formula and funding may not really mean anything to the people of Wellingborough, but when the local hospital must cancel 3,000 out-patients appointments and 600 operations, close a ward and an operating theatre, and transfer nurses from one area to another, that is when it comes home to roost.

Tobias Ellwood: I am pleased to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Bone), who spoke with such passion about how the Budget will affect his constituency. He started by talking about the hype that surrounded the Budget. I agree with him—for many of us who, for the first time, were able to sit in the Chamber and listen to the Budget, there was an awful lot of hype surrounding the event. In fact, one could describe it as a non-event. We had a 61 minute speech and lots of documents—1,000 pages in all, I think—but there was very little to tackle some of the challenges that we face today. There was nothing to assist productivity growth, pensioners or the NHS. When we remove the North sea oil revenues, we find that we are being taxed more now than ever before.

Tobias Ellwood: The hon. Gentleman falls foul of exactly the same thing that I accused him of earlier. He is trying to talk about Tory policy when we should be debating the Government's policy. There will be ample opportunity to discuss Conservative policy in due course, but today's debate is about the Government, not the Conservative party. Yes, we heard a 61 minute speech from the Chancellor, but there was not one mention of any of the initiatives that I have cited in the statement or in the 1,000 pages that were produced. [Interruption.] I will make some progress because I appreciate that we want to hear from the Front-Bench spokesmen.
	At the start of the debate, we digressed by talking about the NHS. The NHS is in crisis, but there was nothing in the Budget to alleviate it. We acknowledge that an extra £1 billion has been put into the NHS, but today we became diverted on to a debate about whether simply to throw money at something. That debate was entirely misleading. Conservative Members do not question the fact that extra spending must be put in, but it is the way in which the money is spent that is important. Reform must accompany spending, which shows the whole point of us scrutinising the money that is spent.
	Although Dorset has one of the worst-funded health authorities in the country, we are just able to make ends meet. However, as authorities in other parts of the country cannot do their sums and run their services correctly, £11 million is being removed from our health authority so that it can be given to other authorities. Dorset, which is doing well, is being made to suffer and yet another health authority will go into the red. That cannot be sensible, and it shows exactly why we need the reform about which I spoke earlier—[Interruption.] I get the message and will draw my remarks to a conclusion.
	I was pleased, on a personal level, by the announcement of the introduction of a charitable fund to help British victims of terrorist attacks abroad. Such a fund was absent until now, although Spain, France, the United States and other countries had introduced one. Adequate compensation was provided after people were sadly killed or affected by the 7 July bombings because of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority. However, those affected by an attack on Britons abroad did not get a penny because the compensation scheme is limited to British shores and travel insurance does not cover terrorism. I am pleased that the fund has been introduced and I ask the Paymaster General to give us details on when we will have a full announcement on how the process will work.
	The Budget was left wanting. An awful lot could be done and we need answers soon. We cannot wait until the comprehensive spending review to tackle problems with the NHS, the climate, the economy and, certainly, our support for pensioners.

Paul Goodman: No, I must make progress and let the Paymaster General in.
	In 2050, China's share of world trade is estimated to rise to 24 per cent. North America's is estimated to fall by 2 per cent. to 23 per cent. The EU's share is set to fall by almost half to a mere 12 per cent., so the choice is clear. Even to maintain our position—to keep up with North American rather than European Union growth rates—we must compete to prosper. If we are to meet the challenge of the 21st century, the economy must travel in the right direction.
	We all know, or should know, what that means—high growth rates, improved competitiveness, better productivity, internationally competitive tax rates, light touch regulation, strong savings and investment with reform. Last year our growth was 1.8 per cent. It was not growth at North American levels. It was not even growth at EU levels. A 1.8 per cent. growth rate was below the EU average—indeed, I can tell the hon. Member for Normanton (Ed Balls) that we were 19th out of 25—below the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development average and below the world average, but the Budget will do little to take our growth, compared with that of our competitors, in the right direction.
	We need improved competitiveness. According to the World Economic Forum, as we heard, since 1997 we have dropped from fourth place in the competitiveness league table to 13th. In 1997 our share of world trade was 5.7 per cent.; last year it had fallen to 3.8 per cent. The Budget will do little to take our competitiveness in the right direction.
	We need improved productivity, as my hon. Friend the Member for Beverley and Holderness said. He pointed out that year on year growth in productivity is at its lowest since 1990, at 0.4 per cent. From 1992 to 1997, as he said, the improvement was 2.6 per cent. Under the Labour Government it fell to 1.3 per cent. The Budget contains little to take our productivity in the right direction.
	We need tax rates that are internationally competitive, but far from going in the right direction, our tax burden is going in the wrong direction. In 1997, our tax as a share of gross domestic product was just under 35 per cent. The falling line of tax as a percentage of GDP in Germany is about to cross the rising line of tax as a percentage of GDP in the UK. Page 266 of the Red Book confirms that tax as a percentage of GDP next year is expected to rise to 38 per cent., the highest rate for about 20 years.
	The USA, Canada, Australia and Ireland, as the hon. Member for Belfast, North (Mr. Dodds) pointed out, are following the same competitive path. In 2000 our business taxes were 10th from the OECD lowest; now, they are 10th from the OECD highest. The Budget will do nothing to make our tax rates more competitive or to make our tax burden go down rather than up. The Chancellor could not bring himself to admit yesterday that the Budget adds another £5.5 billion over three years to the nation's tax bill, already the highest since records began.
	We need strong savings, and it is here that the Chancellor is perhaps most culpable. My right hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin) earlier quoted the Prime Minister in opposition. The Chancellor said in opposition:
	"I want the next Labour Government to achieve what in 50 years of the welfare state has never been achieved: the end of the means-test for our elderly people".
	What has happened to means-testing under the Government? When we left office, the percentage of pensioners who were means-tested was 37 per cent., whereas now it is 46 per cent. and climbing.
	What has happened to saving? Since 1997, the personal savings ratio has fallen by half. This Budget will do nothing to take savings in the right direction, any more than it will restore the £45 billion that the Chancellor has plundered from pension funds since 1997. Yesterday, the Chancellor could not even bring himself to admit that he expects the savings ratio to fall yet again next year, any more than he could bring himself to mention—I will be interested to see whether the Paymaster General can manage this—the words "Lord" and "Turner" in the same sentence.
	Above all, we need investment with reform. We have had the spending—money has been poured into hospitals, schools and child care—but we have not had the reform. Yesterday, the Chancellor had scarcely a word to say about, and no action to take, on the NHS. I concede that the Chancellor had plenty of words and an action plan for education, but it was an action plan with no timetable.

Dawn Primarolo: No, I shall answer the questions that hon. Members have asked and, if I have time, give way to the hon. Gentleman.
	The hon. Member for Mid-Sussex made many points about pensioners. I agree that every hon. Member should be concerned about that, but I want to remind him of a few factors. Reforms to pensioners' tax and benefits since 1997 have meant that pensioners are, on average, £27 a week better off and the poorest third of pensioners are £39 a week better off. Let me put it another way: 2.1 million pensioners have been lifted out of absolute low income between 1996–97 and 2004–05, and more than 1 million have been lifted out of relative low income in the same period. They became the victims of low income and poverty under the previous Government's policies.
	I stress to the hon. Member for Mid-Sussex that, of course, it is important to have an effective pensions system in future. Lord Turner's contribution to the debate and the Government's response will ensure that a carefully considered programme that balances the principles of personal responsibility, fairness, simplicity, affordability and sustainability, is implemented.
	The hon. Gentleman also asked about the ombudsman's report. He acknowledged that the Department for Work and Pensions had made a considered response to it and I do not believe that I can add anything to that. However, in May 2004, the Government set up the financial assistance scheme, covering 15,000 people, and we have made a commitment to review the fund for the scheme.
	The health service was mentioned repeatedly. Let us get a few things straight. The Government's plans for the NHS were set out in the Budget of 2002, providing clear plans for right up to 2008, offering long-term certainty for the NHS in order for it to plan. Since 1997, UK health spending has risen from the £33 billion that we inherited from the previous Conservative Government to £97 billion, representing a 7 per cent. real-terms increase per year. Now, 99 per cent. of people suspected of having cancer are seen by a specialist within two weeks, and we no longer have to listen to horrendous stories in our surgeries resulting from Conservative Government policy. If the Conservatives want to know where the money went, I shall tell them. It has gone towards 660,000 more operations and 1 million more elective admissions each year. These represent increases of 88 per cent., 89 per cent. and 108 per cent. in people's treatment.
	Alongside that, there are now 79,000 more nurses and 27,000 more doctors. By the end of the 2004 spending round, the NHS will have 90 per cent. higher spending in real terms than it did in 1997. The money has not gone to pay for managers' salaries, as Conservative Members insist on saying. NHS managers now comprise 3 per cent. of the staff, whereas that figure was 5 per cent in 1997, so the percentage is falling under this Government.
	The hon. Member for South-West Hertfordshire (Mr. Gauke) made a measured contribution, in which he mentioned productivity. He had the good grace to acknowledge that, in the public services—including the national health service—measuring and improving productivity presented a challenge. However, the NHS report shows improved productivity as a result of lower levels of staff sickness and the reduced use of agency staff in 2004–05, which freed up about £60 million more for patient care. But, of course, it cannot end there.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order.
	It being Six o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.
	Debate to be resumed on Monday 27 March.

Mr. Omid Farivar

Tony McNulty: Members find ways and means of raising aspects of cases each and every day. I shall not comment directly on the outcome of the judicial process until it is complete. We are doing all we can through the immigration and nationality directorate, to ensure through correspondence, e-mail, hot lines and so on, that any subsequent information that a Member wants to submit about an individual case can be taken fully into consideration. I spend much of my time deferring decisions on removal directions or other aspects of cases so that new information—if it is genuinely new—can be put before the caseworker concerned, or me.
	With the greatest respect, I have to point out that with the best will in the world, the issue is not simply about meeting the Minister in every instance. I meet individual MPs and they talk to me about cases and raise specific points with me every time I am in the House. It is right and proper that I should make myself available in that way. As and when appropriate I meet MPs on a regular basis, but I do not do so in every case where a Member has requested a meeting. I do not think that doing so would be fair on the MPs, given the expectations that may or may not be raised with the applications or the general process that I undertake in dealing with cases.
	I hope that my right hon. Friend will accept that things are improving in our interactions with MPs in such cases. We are doing all we can to improve not only the decision-making process and the information made available during that process, and how the IND and the Home Office work with MPs and their caseworkers and correspond about cases, but more broadly in creating a more robust asylum process, rooted in the 1951 convention, which is and must be our starting point.
	In conclusion, the IND and the Home Office are doing things far more efficiently, but not in the context of a more hard-headed approach or a growing unwillingness to use discretion. Of course the asylum system, rooted in the 1951 convention and the European convention on human rights, is and should be about dealing with political repression and the circumstances of specific cases and their ins and outs. Rather going into the specifics of a case—to be perfectly honest, it would be inappropriate to do so on the Floor of the House or in any public forum—it is right and proper that I have dwelt on the broader issues that I hope will be of some use to my right hon. Friend.
	Question put and agreed to.
	Adjourned accordingly at twenty-six minutes past Six o'clock.

CORRECTION

Official Report, 22 March 2006: In col. 271, 3rd paragraph, 2nd line, delete 2,100 and insert 200,000.